Elmer's Brother

    (from James Taranto) We suppose a little elaboration is in order about the John Murtha kerfuffle. The item about which left some readers confused and a few ticked off. Here is the full story, with details drawn from bloggers PoliPundit and NZ Bear, along with our own Brendan Miniter.

    Last Thursday Murtha held a press conference, at which he advocated the following course of action: 

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy--immediately redeploy.

No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target. . . .

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

Here's how the Associated Press reported the story:

An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

This made more news than it should have, since, as we noted Friday, Murtha, although he did vote to liberate Iraq, has been a frequent critic of the idea, even before casting that vote. In any case, Rep. Duncan Hunter responded to the Murtha proposal and the attendant hype by putting up for a vote in the House a resolution "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." This the House rejected, 403-3, with Murtha among the 99.3% voting against what he had proposed the previous day.

Some of our readers say it was unfair of us to label the Hunter resolution "the Murtha proposal" because Murtha actually offered a resolution of his own, which did not use the word immediate but instead called for withdrawal "at the earliest practicable date." That resolution appears at the bottom of this page on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blog, which one of our critical readers e-mailed us triumphantly.

The same page, however, features Murtha's comments from his press conference, including repeated references to immediate withdrawal. It's fascinating how those who claim to be Murtha's defenders are now hiding behind the text of his resolution to claim he never called for immediate withdrawal, when in fact that is exactly what he did. Here's an AP dispatch from yesterday that confirms the point:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake."

The New York Democrat said she respects Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the Vietnam veteran and hawkish ex-Marine who last week called for an immediate troop pullout. But she added: "I think that would cause more problems for us in America."

Hillary Clinton opposes immediate withdrawal. So did 187 Democratic members of the House last Friday. The defense of Murtha consists of falsely denying he ever called for any such thing.

Give Murtha credit for helping to clarify the debate. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is something no serious person favors. Even those who think they do, like Murtha, change their minds upon reflection.

Heat on the Street
Here's an encouraging Reuters report from Dubai. It seems Arab television stations are airing "daring dramas that deal with Islamic militancy"--that is, terrorism--"in al Qaeda's main breeding ground":

The producers of the shows say they are another battleground in the war on homegrown religious zealotry, which many Middle East governments are confronting by crackdowns and media campaigns. . . .

Ali al-Ahmed, head of Abu Dhabi TV, which produced "The Rugged Path," said extremists had the loudest voice today, so it was vital to give moderates a channel to air their views.

"This is everybody's problem, and as Arabs we have to talk about it. We can't consider it as just a passing phenomenon that will quietly end after some time," he said.

Millions of Arabs and Muslims were shocked and puzzled that the September 11 attacks in the United States were carried out by Arab nationals, born and bred in the Middle East.

After al Qaeda turned its attention away from the West to attack Arab and Muslim cities, the need to understand the roots of radicalism assumed extra urgency in the region.

One grieves, of course, for all victims of terrorism. But it was a lot easier for Arabs to adopt a blasé attitude when the victims were mostly American and Israeli. The "extra urgency" is a welcome byproduct of America's decision to fight terrorists rather than try to appease the "Arab street."

Not Evil?
The Canadian Press reports on a Toronto speech by TV host Chris Matthews:

Four years after 9/11 and the "crazy zeitgeist" that permeated the United States, most Americans have still not learned to know their enemies instead of just hating them, U.S. political journalist Chris Matthews says. . . .

"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil--they just have a different perspective."

Possibly this very brief account is unfair to Matthews. But if this is really what he said, it's rather stunningly clueless. Of course it's true that one should know one's enemy, and merely saying al Qaeda is "evil" is far from sufficient to understand the terror group. But surely it's necessary. If Matthews thinks people who wantonly murder the innocent are "not evil," he knows nothing.

Feminist Priorities
"A village council in Pakistan has decreed that five young women should be abducted, raped or killed for refusing to honour childhood 'marriages,' " reports London's Daily Telegraph:

The women, who are cousins, were married in absentia by a mullah in their Punjabi village to illiterate sons of their family's enemies in 1996, when they were aged from six to 13.

The marriages were part of a compensation agreement ordered by the village council and reached at gunpoint after the father of one of the girls shot dead a family rival.

We were wondering what the National Organization of Women, which describes itself as "the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States," had to say about this. Here's what we found atop NOW's Web site:

• A press release denouncing the House for cutting $50 billion in spending ("brave moderate Republicans stood firm . . . their hard working, struggling, and vulnerable constituents . . . devastating budget cuts").
  
  
• Another press release denouncing Italian-American Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito ("virtual assurance that he will vote to scale back women's rights . . . the very private decision to have an abortion . . . a threat to our basic human and civil rights . . . the days of women's civil rights are numbered").

In fairness, NOW does occasionally weigh in on the treatment of women in Pakistan, but it seems clear the group's priorities lie elsewhere.